I have two translations of the Isha Upanishad. One version relates to Krishna and the other to the Self. Could you help me for a better understanding of the issue? Which translation should I follow?

Thanks for your answers.

yajvan

06 May 2014, 07:16 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Namaste,

I have two translations of the Isha Upanishad. One version relates to Krishna and the other to the Self. Could you help me for a better understanding of the issue? Which translation should I follow?

Thanks for your answers.
IMHO I would read both. Yet, and this seems to cause some level of angst to many, there is no difference between Self and kṛṣṇa-jī . That is why the bhāgavad gītā is so perfect and applicable to many views of Reality.

We know this : īśa is one that is the complete master, so it is aligns to kṛṣṇa-jī . Yet too this īśa is defined as śiva (also as the number 11, as there are 11 rudra-s).

Yet many ~ convert~ the notion of īśa to brahman. why so? Because we are informed all this is brahman. And if you look to the 1st
śloka of the īśāvasya upaniṣad it informs us of the same; that all this (sarva = altogether , wholly , completely ) is full/inhabited/occupied (āvāsya) by īśa.

iti śivaṁ

savithru

28 July 2014, 12:47 AM

Namaste,

I have two translations of the Isha Upanishad. One version relates to Krishna and the other to the Self. Could you help me for a better understanding of the issue? Which translation should I follow?